Author
Topic: Some Sanity! (Read 14851 times)

More than ten years after a study in The Lancet falsely linked autism to the measles, mumps and rubella triple vaccine, evidence of reduced immunization rates and rising incidence of disease are spurring politicians to try to make up lost ground.

California has tightened the laws that allow parents in the state to opt out of immunization for their children. It now joins Washington and Vermont in requiring parents who want an exemption to demonstrate that they have received factual information about the risks and benefits of vaccination from a health-care practitioner or the state’s health department...

Asteriktos, I think you may get more responses if you get rid of that scary avatar. Scared the crap out of me LOL. I remember when the scare over that vaccination was really casing some concern. I actually waited a few years to vaccinate my youngest. My feeling is that the real concern over Autism might actually be more related with the age of the reproductive parents verses and known agent. Many families these days don't start having children until the adults are in there late reproductive years. Sometimes in there late 40's and early 50's. The general mindset today is to form a career before starting a family and that sort of drives visions of a family life into those late years unfortunately.

Asteriktos, I think you may get more responses if you get rid of that scary avatar. Scared the crap out of me LOL. I remember when the scare over that vaccination was really casing some concern. I actually waited a few years to vaccinate my youngest. My feeling is that the real concern over Autism might actually be more related with the age of the reproductive parents verses and known agent. Many families these days don't start having children until the adults are in there late reproductive years. Sometimes in there late 40's and early 50's. The general mindset today is to form a career before starting a family and that sort of drives visions of a family life into those late years unfortunately.

My Mom once believed the urban legends about vaccinations. Then I got mumps. Then Dad made her take me for the shots.

I don't consider huge state control over people's daily lives to be an increase in sanity, but whatever floats your boat.

It's not your lives but the lives of your children. What I don't like is parents considering their children their property thinking that they can do/opt out of doing anything for their children just because it is 'their children' even when it harms their children.

I for one am happy that the state is finally doing something to crack down on crazy parents. You don't know how many weirdo Evangelicals I've met who believe in all these weird conspiracies that vaccines are bad for you and that they should not get them for their children even though modern children have been getting them for years and nothing bad happens to them. Likewise, there are also the crazy religious parents who don't want to get their teenagers vaccinated for certain illnesses just because they can be contracted sexually or orally. These people should not have the right to put their teenagers in danger like that just because of their religious beliefs. Sure you have the right to teach your religion to your children, but to force your religion on them to the extent that it threatens their physical health is going too far.

Logged

Until I see the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, I will not believe.

I don't consider huge state control over people's daily lives to be an increase in sanity, but whatever floats your boat.

I'm old enough to remember seeing kids in calipers, crippled by polio, at school. Of seeing kids and adults in iron lungs. And seeing others maimed or dying from other easily-preventable diseases. "Huge state control over people's daily lives"? My eye.

I don't consider huge state control over people's daily lives to be an increase in sanity, but whatever floats your boat.

It's not your lives but the lives of your children. What I don't like is parents considering their children their property thinking that they can do/opt out of doing anything for their children just because it is 'their children' even when it harms their children.

I for one am happy that the state is finally doing something to crack down on crazy parents. You don't know how many weirdo Evangelicals I've met who believe in all these weird conspiracies that vaccines are bad for you and that they should not get them for their children even though modern children have been getting them for years and nothing bad happens to them. Likewise, there are also the crazy religious parents who don't want to get their teenagers vaccinated for certain illnesses just because they can be contracted sexually or orally. These people should not have the right to put their teenagers in danger like that just because of their religious beliefs. Sure you have the right to teach your religion to your children, but to force your religion on them to the extent that it threatens their physical health is going too far.

I know just what you mean. My old science teacher was one of those conservative evangelical nutters, and she used to go on and on about "Obamacare" and the evils of the govt. forcing children to be vaccinated.

Logged

"At the Last Judgment I will not be asked whether I satisfactorily practiced asceticism, nor how many bows I have made before the divine altar. I will be asked whether I fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited the sick, and the prisoner in his jail. That is all I will be asked." - Sv. Maria Skobotsova

It's not that people think that the vaccinations themselves are bad, it's the principle of the matter. People don't like to be told what to do by the government. Not everyone believes that the government always has our best interest at heart (fair enough).

Logged

"At the Last Judgment I will not be asked whether I satisfactorily practiced asceticism, nor how many bows I have made before the divine altar. I will be asked whether I fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited the sick, and the prisoner in his jail. That is all I will be asked." - Sv. Maria Skobotsova

Monsters. That is what these people are. Even if vaccines are as safe as the state claims, forcing society to accept such things is nothing short of tyrannical (no telling what the state will deem being properly "informed"). Orthodoxy is great for people too, but I am not exactly ready to ban heresy and force people into conversion at gunpoint (unless they have a "proper" theological understanding of the issues). The more you give to the temporal powers, the more they will expect and demand. Let the state force vaccines down the people's throat today and you will be paving the way to likewise have the state mandate whatever other things they perceive as "beneficial". This is an issue of freedom, not health.

« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 09:19:36 PM by Ioannis Climacus »

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Monsters. That is what these people are. Even if vaccines are as safe as the state claims, forcing society to accept such things is nothing short of tyrannical (no telling what the state will deem being properly "informed"). Orthodoxy is great for people too, but I am not exactly ready to ban heresy and force people into conversion at gunpoint (unless they have a "proper" theological understanding of the issues). The more you give to the temporal powers, the more they will expect and demand. Let the state force vaccines down the people's throat today and you will be paving the way to likewise have the state mandate whatever other things they perceive as "beneficial". This is an issue of freedom, not health.

Monsters. That is what these people are. Even if vaccines are as safe as the state claims, forcing society to accept such things is nothing short of tyrannical (no telling what the state will deem being properly "informed"). Orthodoxy is great for people too, but I am not exactly ready to ban heresy and force people into conversion at gunpoint (unless they have a "proper" theological understanding of the issues). The more you give to the temporal powers, the more they will expect and demand. Let the state force vaccines down the people's throat today and you will be paving the way to likewise have the state mandate whatever other things they perceive as "beneficial". This is an issue of freedom, not health.

Yeah, it was great to have the freedom to catch mumps.

Because no one catches mumps from the vaccine itself...

Regardless, I have the freedom to go to hell, why not the freedom to avoid vaccines?

« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 09:33:12 PM by Ioannis Climacus »

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Monsters. That is what these people are. Even if vaccines are as safe as the state claims, forcing society to accept such things is nothing short of tyrannical (no telling what the state will deem being properly "informed"). Orthodoxy is great for people too, but I am not exactly ready to ban heresy and force people into conversion at gunpoint (unless they have a "proper" theological understanding of the issues). The more you give to the temporal powers, the more they will expect and demand. Let the state force vaccines down the people's throat today and you will be paving the way to likewise have the state mandate whatever other things they perceive as "beneficial". This is an issue of freedom, not health.

Yeah, it was great to have the freedom to catch mumps.

Because no one catches mumps from the vaccine itself...

No, they don't. I caught it before they gave me the vaccine. What do you not understand?

Opinions like yours aren't just the ones that don't matter (I like team xyz, I like such-and-such ice cream). They kill people.

Monsters. That is what these people are. Even if vaccines are as safe as the state claims, forcing society to accept such things is nothing short of tyrannical (no telling what the state will deem being properly "informed"). Orthodoxy is great for people too, but I am not exactly ready to ban heresy and force people into conversion at gunpoint (unless they have a "proper" theological understanding of the issues). The more you give to the temporal powers, the more they will expect and demand. Let the state force vaccines down the people's throat today and you will be paving the way to likewise have the state mandate whatever other things they perceive as "beneficial". This is an issue of freedom, not health.

Yeah, it was great to have the freedom to catch mumps.

Because no one catches mumps from the vaccine itself...

No, they don't. I caught it before they gave me the vaccine. What do you not understand?

Opinions like yours aren't just the ones that don't matter (I like team xyz, I like such-and-such ice cream). They kill people.

All vaccines carry the risk of you actually catching the sickness itself.

But obesity kills, are you ready for a national diet? Heresy damns, are you ready for Orthodox totalitarianism?

Thanks for the offer of a dysatopic future though. I will stick with freedom.

« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 09:45:53 PM by Ioannis Climacus »

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Monsters. That is what these people are. Even if vaccines are as safe as the state claims, forcing society to accept such things is nothing short of tyrannical (no telling what the state will deem being properly "informed"). Orthodoxy is great for people too, but I am not exactly ready to ban heresy and force people into conversion at gunpoint (unless they have a "proper" theological understanding of the issues). The more you give to the temporal powers, the more they will expect and demand. Let the state force vaccines down the people's throat today and you will be paving the way to likewise have the state mandate whatever other things they perceive as "beneficial". This is an issue of freedom, not health.

So many fallacies that I do not even know where to start derailing your post. If you honestly think that forcing someone to get vaccinated/vaccinate their children is the same thing as forcing someone to convert to Orthodoxy then I feel sorrt with you. The difference is that when you do not receive vaccinations, not only do you put yourself at danger, but you put other people at danger of contracting particular illnesses. Therefore, the collective wellbeing of the people overrules the individual. On the other hand, forcing someone to convert to Orthodoxy is different because whether or not they are Orthodox will--in most cases at least--not affect/harm anyone else other than themselves. Likewise, children do not possess the intellectual capacity to decide for themselves whether or not they should receive vaccinations, so therefore it falls under the parents' responsibility to handle it. And parents should not be allowed to refuse their children vaccinations--which would harm their childrens' health, just because they are conspiracists or some religious nuts. And even further, should not send their unvaccinated children to public schools where they risk spreading illnesses to other children.

« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 09:48:03 PM by JamesR »

Logged

Until I see the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, I will not believe.

The government has an obligation to protect public safety. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't mean anything if you're dead. The government also has the right to pass laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Don't like it? Live somewhere else.

Would you have been ranting about absolutist 'freedom' during the flu epidemic of 1918? I guess not. I've never heard anyone say, "I like this horrible disease I've got. I want to die."

You go ahead and catch things and die. I like life. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of your children to pass on whooping cough to others. Sorry.

But obesity kills, are you ready for a national diet? Heresy damns, are you ready for Orthodox totalitarianism?

Neither a person's obesity or heresy affects and/or harms anyone else other than themselves, so to answer your questions, no, we are not ready for a national diet or totalitarian Orthodox state. However, as I pointed out in your last post, not receiving your vaccines/not getting your children their vaccines carries the risk of not only harming the persons in question but other people as well. So for the collective state of the people, we should overrule the 'rights' of the individual and make vaccinations mandatory.

Logged

Until I see the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, I will not believe.

The difference is that when you do not receive vaccinations, not only do you put yourself at danger, but you put other people at danger of contracting particular illnesses. Therefore, the collective wellbeing of the people overrules the individual. On the other hand, forcing someone to convert to Orthodoxy is different because whether or not they are Orthodox will--in most cases at least--not affect/harm anyone else other than themselves. Likewise, children do not possess the intellectual capacity to decide for themselves whether or not they should receive vaccinations, so therefore it falls under the parents' responsibility to handle it. And parents should not be allowed to refuse their children vaccinations--which would harm their childrens' health, just because they are conspiracists or some religious nuts. And even further, should not send their unvaccinated children to public schools where they risk spreading illnesses to other children.

Not true. The unconverted are quite apt at spreading heresy. Parents are likewise able to instruct their children in blasphemous teachings. All of these things are to the detriment of their immortal souls - something much more important than life.

And sorry, but I don't buy utilitarian BS about the collective good and its superiority to individual rights. Such is the talk of tyrants and despots. Life has risks.

Question though, why do you fear unvaccinated children spreading sickness to the vaccinated ones? Wouldn't that make the vaccination moot?

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Not true. The unconverted are quite apt at spreading heresy. Parents are likewise able to instruct their children in blasphemous teachings. All of these things are to the detriment of their immortal souls - something much more important than life.

Spreading heresy is not the same as spreading illness. People possess the freedom of whether or not they want to accept heresy or not whereas in most cases people cannot choose whether they contract illnesses or not. Likewise, it is not the purpose nor the concern of the earthly government to interfere with the conditions of our 'immortal souls'--something in which we do not even know if it exists. That's the job of God and the Church.

Quote

And sorry, but I don't buy utilitarian BS about the collective good and its superiority to individual rights. Such is the talk of tyrants and despots. Life has risks.

Well I don't buy into the Ayn Rand BS about individual rights and spoiled individuals being able to negatively affect the entire population just because of their 'individual rights' crap. Such talk is the talk of Satan and is the philosophy of right-wing despots and tyrants. Satan was the ultimate objectivist.

Quote

Question though, why do you fear unvaccinated children spreading sickness to the vaccinated ones? Wouldn't that make the vaccination moot?

It is about taking precautions. Sure the vaccinations are supposed to prevent the illnesses from being contracted, and in most case they do prevent that from happening, but you can never be fully certain, and so it is better to make it mandatory for everyone who is going to be a part of the society to become vaccinated, so that we can further decrease the chances of other children contracting an illness.

Likewise, parents do not have the rights to refuse their children vaccinations either in my mind. I don't give a hell about your 'but it's my religious freedom hur hurr' bullcrap that religious nut parents say when they try to force their religion upon their child or mistreat their child because of differing religions.

Logged

Until I see the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, I will not believe.

At one point, the FDA actually made companies do more reasearch before making medicine available, like 20+ years. Now, not so much, and we see the results. Law suits, people dying and those same "great" meds getting shelfed. I will now forever be weary of any new medical development. Give it 5 to 10 years and see what happens.

The government has an obligation to protect public safety. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't mean anything if you're dead. The government also has the right to pass laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Don't like it? Live somewhere else.

Liberty doesn't mean anything unless you actually have it. Sorry, but I don't worship the Constitution (not that it grants vaccine fanatics the right to pursue their agenda anyway - Amendments IV, V, and XIV). I also don't ally myself with the Washington regime either. I am much more happy with biding time until we can get a real secessionist movement going again, so I will kindly decline your offer of "leaving".

Would you have been ranting about absolutist 'freedom' during the flu epidemic of 1918? I guess not. I've never heard anyone say, "I like this horrible disease I've got. I want to die."

You go ahead and catch things and die. I like life. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of your children to pass on whooping cough to others. Sorry.

Actually, you just don't believe in freedom. Freedom is risky thing. You seem much more content with serfdom and your chains. I prefer freedom and all the risks/dangers it affords. That is superior to slavery, regardless of the safety it provides.

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

The government has an obligation to protect public safety. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't mean anything if you're dead. The government also has the right to pass laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Don't like it? Live somewhere else.

Would you have been ranting about absolutist 'freedom' during the flu epidemic of 1918? I guess not. I've never heard anyone say, "I like this horrible disease I've got. I want to die."

You go ahead and catch things and die. I like life. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of your children to pass on whooping cough to others. Sorry.

Perhaps we should lice powder and shave bald every child in school as well?

You suggested we read the Constitution. I actually keep a copy on my desk. When I read it, I see the limits of government. Can you show me where it says big brother can force is into getting any medical procedure?

Spreading heresy is not the same as spreading illness. People possess the freedom of whether or not they want to accept heresy or not whereas in most cases people cannot choose whether they contract illnesses or not. Likewise, it is not the purpose nor the concern of the earthly government to interfere with the conditions of our 'immortal souls'--something in which we do not even know if it exists. That's the job of God and the Church.

How much "freedom" do children possess in accepting/rejecting the teachings of their parents?

Well I don't buy into the Ayn Rand BS about individual rights and spoiled individuals being able to negatively affect the entire population just because of their 'individual rights' crap. Such talk is the talk of Satan and is the philosophy of right-wing despots and tyrants. Satan was the ultimate objectivist.

That sir, is a strawman. Not once did I advocate objectivism. If you think individualism is limited to Randianism, then you are sadly mistaken. The founders, for instance, would be horrified by such collectivism.

What right-wing despots and tyrants supported individualism?

Quote

It is about taking precautions. Sure the vaccinations are supposed to prevent the illnesses from being contracted, and in most case they do prevent that from happening, but you can never be fully certain, and so it is better to make it mandatory for everyone who is going to be a part of the society to become vaccinated, so that we can further decrease the chances of other children contracting an illness.

Likewise, parents do not have the rights to refuse their children vaccinations either in my mind. I don't give a hell about your 'but it's my religious freedom hur hurr' bullcrap that religious nut parents say when they try to force their religion upon their child or mistreat their child because of differing religions.

You must really dislike the First Amendment. You know, the religious freedom "hu hurr' bullcrap".

« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 10:47:22 PM by Ioannis Climacus »

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Yeah, like the religious freedom of Jehovah's Witnesses who let their kids die because they don't believe in blood transfusions. Or the Christian Scientists who let their kids die of viral infections because it's better to 'sweat it out' in prayer.

Excuse me, but St. Luke was a physician, and Our Lord was pleased to call him as an apostle. That's good enough for me.

The government has an obligation to protect public safety. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't mean anything if you're dead. The government also has the right to pass laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Don't like it? Live somewhere else.

Would you have been ranting about absolutist 'freedom' during the flu epidemic of 1918? I guess not. I've never heard anyone say, "I like this horrible disease I've got. I want to die."

You go ahead and catch things and die. I like life. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of your children to pass on whooping cough to others. Sorry.

Perhaps we should lice powder and shave bald every child in school as well?

You suggested we read the Constitution. I actually keep a copy on my desk. When I read it, I see the limits of government. Can you show me where it says big brother can force is into getting any medical procedure?

I've never heard of anyone getting into the military without getting a physical. The Constitution gives the government power over the military.

The government has an obligation to protect public safety. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't mean anything if you're dead. The government also has the right to pass laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Don't like it? Live somewhere else.

Would you have been ranting about absolutist 'freedom' during the flu epidemic of 1918? I guess not. I've never heard anyone say, "I like this horrible disease I've got. I want to die."

You go ahead and catch things and die. I like life. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of your children to pass on whooping cough to others. Sorry.

Perhaps we should lice powder and shave bald every child in school as well?

You suggested we read the Constitution. I actually keep a copy on my desk. When I read it, I see the limits of government. Can you show me where it says big brother can force is into getting any medical procedure?

I've never heard of anyone getting into the military without getting a physical. The Constitution gives the government power over the military.

You aren't reading the posts, rather skimming over them. Additionally, many medical procedures can be refused for military members, but not all, so it isn't slavery.

This is an interesting debate. Let's suppose we are trying to eradicate a debilitating disease that is easily communicable. Can you say you can use the Constitution just to give that person the freedom to not get treated despite how dangerous he is to others?

If the answer is yes, then what the state did is wrong.If the answer is no, then there should even be forced vaccinations.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

The government has an obligation to protect public safety. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't mean anything if you're dead. The government also has the right to pass laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Don't like it? Live somewhere else.

Would you have been ranting about absolutist 'freedom' during the flu epidemic of 1918? I guess not. I've never heard anyone say, "I like this horrible disease I've got. I want to die."

You go ahead and catch things and die. I like life. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of your children to pass on whooping cough to others. Sorry.

Perhaps we should lice powder and shave bald every child in school as well?

You suggested we read the Constitution. I actually keep a copy on my desk. When I read it, I see the limits of government. Can you show me where it says big brother can force is into getting any medical procedure?

I've never heard of anyone getting into the military without getting a physical. The Constitution gives the government power over the military.

You aren't reading the posts, rather skimming over them. Additionally, many medical procedures can be refused for military members, but not all, so it isn't slavery.

The government has an obligation to protect public safety. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't mean anything if you're dead. The government also has the right to pass laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Don't like it? Live somewhere else.

Would you have been ranting about absolutist 'freedom' during the flu epidemic of 1918? I guess not. I've never heard anyone say, "I like this horrible disease I've got. I want to die."

You go ahead and catch things and die. I like life. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of your children to pass on whooping cough to others. Sorry.

Perhaps we should lice powder and shave bald every child in school as well?

You suggested we read the Constitution. I actually keep a copy on my desk. When I read it, I see the limits of government. Can you show me where it says big brother can force is into getting any medical procedure?

I've never heard of anyone getting into the military without getting a physical. The Constitution gives the government power over the military.

You aren't reading the posts, rather skimming over them. Additionally, many medical procedures can be refused for military members, but not all, so it isn't slavery.

The government has an obligation to protect public safety. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't mean anything if you're dead. The government also has the right to pass laws. Read the Constitution sometime. Don't like it? Live somewhere else.

Would you have been ranting about absolutist 'freedom' during the flu epidemic of 1918? I guess not. I've never heard anyone say, "I like this horrible disease I've got. I want to die."

You go ahead and catch things and die. I like life. I don't believe in the 'freedom' of your children to pass on whooping cough to others. Sorry.

Perhaps we should lice powder and shave bald every child in school as well?

You suggested we read the Constitution. I actually keep a copy on my desk. When I read it, I see the limits of government. Can you show me where it says big brother can force is into getting any medical procedure?

I've never heard of anyone getting into the military without getting a physical. The Constitution gives the government power over the military.

You aren't reading the posts, rather skimming over them. Additionally, many medical procedures can be refused for military members, but not all, so it isn't slavery.

Lie. I read the posts. How would you even know?

Oh my!!! You called me a liar. Perhaps incorrect, but not a liar.

How would I know? Based off you lack of response to what is posted. So, one of four things. You aren't reading completely. You don't understand (which I do not believe). You don't care. Or, you are attempting to respond in a shady manner. In any event, it doesn't bother me if you want to cherry pick which parts of a post to want to address. I sometimes do the same thing. I just try to provide a more complete response is all.

But for clarification, entrance examinations into the military have absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.

Monsters. That is what these people are. Even if vaccines are as safe as the state claims, forcing society to accept such things is nothing short of tyrannical (no telling what the state will deem being properly "informed"). Orthodoxy is great for people too, but I am not exactly ready to ban heresy and force people into conversion at gunpoint (unless they have a "proper" theological understanding of the issues). The more you give to the temporal powers, the more they will expect and demand. Let the state force vaccines down the people's throat today and you will be paving the way to likewise have the state mandate whatever other things they perceive as "beneficial". This is an issue of freedom, not health.

I AGREE COMPLETELY.

5 children, no vaccines, and there are OTHER studies linking Autism to them. Amazing how the money of big pharma keeps "debunking" the truth. No problems either in my children's health at ALL.

This is an interesting debate. Let's suppose we are trying to eradicate a debilitating disease that is easily communicable. Can you say you can use the Constitution just to give that person the freedom to not get treated despite how dangerous he is to others?

If the answer is yes, then what the state did is wrong.If the answer is no, then there should even be forced vaccinations.

This is different.

If 90% of the people chose vaccinationsand 10% chose NOT to vaccinate, the 10% are the ones at risk, not the 90%

It's about the freedom.We chose NOT to vaccinate after multitudes of hours of study.

There are more sides to the argument that "whacky conspiracies" that people often accuse those against vaccines of following. http://www.nvic.org/

This is an interesting debate. Let's suppose we are trying to eradicate a debilitating disease that is easily communicable. Can you say you can use the Constitution just to give that person the freedom to not get treated despite how dangerous he is to others?

If the answer is yes, then what the state did is wrong.If the answer is no, then there should even be forced vaccinations.

This is different.

If 90% of the people chose vaccinationsand 10% chose NOT to vaccinate, the 10% are the ones at risk, not the 90%

It's about the freedom.We chose NOT to vaccinate after multitudes of hours of study.

There are more sides to the argument that "whacky conspiracies" that people often accuse those against vaccines of following. http://www.nvic.org/

Yes, but on my way of trying to get the vaccine, it would be too late, and thanks to the 10%, my child got a disease that could have been prevented if they weren't 20 feet close to my child.

In this country, a person with known multiresistance TB can be forced to be hospitalized if not compliant with physicians, because he has become a potential danger to others.

If you're a walking unpredictable trigger, the Constitution does not protect you to be free to shoot around your bullet anywhere.

And I say this with the most respect possible. It it at most times the really ignorant of people who prevent vaccines. Forgive me, but Jenny McCarthy is not a good representative of mothers who wish to prevent autism for her children. Rather than her promiscuous history, she should have gotten a science education.

« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 11:52:18 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

More than ten years after a study in The Lancet falsely linked autism to the measles, mumps and rubella triple vaccine, evidence of reduced immunization rates and rising incidence of disease are spurring politicians to try to make up lost ground.

California has tightened the laws that allow parents in the state to opt out of immunization for their children. It now joins Washington and Vermont in requiring parents who want an exemption to demonstrate that they have received factual information about the risks and benefits of vaccination from a health-care practitioner or the state’s health department...

A large contributor for the spread of disease is travel. I wonder how long before people are forced to stay in their respective countries or in the USA, their respective states.

This is an interesting debate. Let's suppose we are trying to eradicate a debilitating disease that is easily communicable. Can you say you can use the Constitution just to give that person the freedom to not get treated despite how dangerous he is to others?

If the answer is yes, then what the state did is wrong.If the answer is no, then there should even be forced vaccinations.

This is different.

If 90% of the people chose vaccinationsand 10% chose NOT to vaccinate, the 10% are the ones at risk, not the 90%

It's about the freedom.We chose NOT to vaccinate after multitudes of hours of study.

There are more sides to the argument that "whacky conspiracies" that people often accuse those against vaccines of following. http://www.nvic.org/

Yes, but on my way of trying to get the vaccine, it would be too late, and thanks to the 10%, my child got a disease that could have been prevented if they weren't 20 feet close to my child.

In this country, a person with known multiresistance TB can be forced to be hospitalized if not compliant with physicians, because he has become a potential danger to others.

If you're a walking unpredictable trigger, the Constitution does not protect you to be free to shoot around your bullet anywhere.

And I say this with the most respect possible. It it at most times the really ignorant of people who prevent vaccines. Forgive me, but Jenny McCarthy is not a good representative of mothers who wish to prevent autism for her children. Rather than her promiscuous history, she should have gotten a science education.

Would you be for or against forcible confinement of those with none curable STDs? They regularly engage in intercourse without ever telling their current partner of their disease, thus the massive spread of STDs. What about fatal diseases? Lock them up on an island for the safety of others?

How much "freedom" do children possess in accepting/rejecting the teachings of their parents?

Not very much at all. It really comes down to how much the parents are willing to let them--as I know from personal experience. It may interest you to know that I do actually oppose parents forcing their religion (especially heretical religions) onto their children and if it were a practical possibility to prevent them from doing it, then I would support that. But seeing that I cannot think of a practical way to prevent parents from religiously abusing their child, I am conceding political defeat to that, which is why instead I am advocating that the government stop parents from doing anything that physically harms and/or puts their children at a physical risk--even if it is motivated by their religion.

Quote

That sir, is a strawman. Not once did I advocate objectivism. If you think individualism is limited to Randianism, then you are sadly mistaken. The founders, for instance, would be horrified by such collectivism.

And that 'sir' is the pot calling the kettle black. In your previous post, you can dismiss my altruistic views about the collective population overruling individual rights as 'utilitarianist BS' then why can't I dismiss your individualism as 'Randianist BS'? Likewise, why are we even debating labels and names of philosophical systems of thought? Debate the philosophical systems in themselves. You say that you are an individualist, then explain and defend your individualism--whether it is Randian or not.

You must really dislike the First Amendment. You know, the religious freedom "hu hurr' bullcrap".

I actually don't give a hell about what a document written 400 years ago specifically addressing problems and circumstances that people were facing 400 years ago by fallible men 400 years ago has to say. I've said it before and I will say it again that the Constitution is merely a list of guidelines in my eyes opposed to absolute authority. Going further though, yeah, religious freedom is a good thing, but only to an extent. You Christians in America are spoiled whiny brats too used to the whole country favoring you and favoring your ideological views. Religious freedom ends when it physically harms and/or impedes upon the lives and rights of other people--including your children. This is why we don't allow those crazy Jehova Witness/Christian Science types to reject blood transfusions to their children and why hopefully we will outlaw Jews and Muslims from circumcising their children.

Logged

Until I see the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, I will not believe.